Reeves v. Verizon Corporate Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FILED
OCT 17 2011
Leavon Z. Reeves, ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
) Courts for the District of Columbia
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. II 1045
Verizon Corporate Office/Headquarters, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff s application and dismiss the complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an
action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth
generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available
only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least
plead facts that bring the suit within the court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, alleges that in May 2011, Verizon, based in
New York, New York, claimed that it would credit his account $259.09 for products or services
he never consented to receiving. Plaintiff further alleges that in August 2011, a Verizon
supervisor told plaintiff that he would investigate why the credit had not appeared on his bill, but
as of September 23,2011, plaintiff "is being forced to pay Verizon [$130.37] in order to keep
[his] credit from being severely damaged[] because Verizon is now claiming not to know
anything about [his] credit, , , ," CompI. ~ 6. Plaintiff seeks the promised amount and $100,000
3
presumably in punitive damages for alleged "fraud, misrepresentation, and causing mental
anguish against my person." Id. at 3.
The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversity
jurisdiction because the amount allegedly owed is well below the minimal jurisdictional amount
and under District of Columbia law, "fraud alone is insufficient to render an award for punitive
damages justifiable; there must be something more." Essroc Cement Corp. v. CTJID. C, Inc.,
740 F. Supp. 2d 131, 147 (D.D.C. 2010); see id. (stating that under local law generally,
" '[p ]unitive damages may be awarded only if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that
the tort committed by the defendant was aggravated by egregious conduct and a state of mind that
justifies punitive damages.' ") (quoting Chatman v. Lawlor, 831 A.2d 395, 400 (D.C. 2003))
(other citations omitted); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 555F.3d 873, 877 (3d Cir. 1995) (liThe
allegations on the face of the complaint control the amount in controversy unless it appears 'to a
II
legal certainty the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount ... .' ") (quoting Horton
v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 353 (1961 )) (other citation omitted). A separate Order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: October /? ,2011
2